Hernia Mesh Infection Led to Additional Surgeries: Lawsuit

A Texas woman who allegedly suffered a hernia mesh infection has filed a lawsuit against Ethicon Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, claiming the medical device was defective.

Plaintiff Lydia E. alleges she was implanted with two Physiomesh hernia mesh devices on Jan. 7, 2013 to repair a hernia. On Feb. 10, 2014, she underwent surgery to attempt to repair a recurrent incisional hernia and to remove the Physiomesh hernia mesh. This surgery allegedly revealed that she had experienced hernia mesh failure and the old hernia mesh implants were removed.

According to the hernia mesh infection lawsuit, Lydia underwent another hernia repair surgery on July 13, 2015, and the hernia was reinforced with Physiomesh.

“Since the implant surgery to present, has suffered severe abdominal pain limiting her ability to work and perform daily activities,” the hernia mesh lawsuit alleges. “She continues to have follow-up treatment for the severe pain and complications and may be subject to additional surgeries in the future.”

Physiomesh Lawsuit Alleges Hernia Mesh Risks Outweigh Benefits

Lydia asserts that Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson represented Physiomesh as a safe and effective medical device for hernia repair. However, she asserts that the hernia mesh product was defectively designed and/or manufactured and that its risks outweighed the potential benefits.

According to the hernia mesh lawsuit, the allegedly defective Physiomesh product caused patients an unreasonable risk of adverse reactions including:

  • Chronic pain
  • Recurrence of hernia
  • Rejection of hernia mesh
  • Hernia mesh failure
  • Hernia mesh infection
  • Migration
  • Adhesion to internal organs
  • Fistula formation
  • Nerve damage
  • Tissue damage and/or death
  • Improper wound healing
  • Other hernia mesh complications

Physiomesh has a unique design that is not used by any other hernia mesh products that are sold in the United States, the hernia mesh lawsuit alleges. Physiomesh reportedly incorporates five distinct layers: two layers of polyglecaprone-25 film covering two layers of polydioxanone film, which covers a polypropylene mesh.

The defendants allegedly touted this multilayer coating as being effective at minimizing adhesion and inflammation. However, the multilayer coating allegedly prevented adequate incorporation of the hernia mesh into the body and caused adverse tissue reactions and increases the risk of hernia mesh infection.

“The multi-layer coating of Defendants’ Physiomesh is cytotoxic, immunogenic, and not biocompatible, which causes or contributes to complications such as delayed wound healing, inflammation, foreign body response, rejection, infection, and other complications,” the hernia mesh lawsuit asserts.

Lydia claims that neither she nor her physician was adequately warned about the serious risks associated with the Physiomesh hernia mesh products. As a result, she says she required surgical intervention to repair the damage caused by the hernia mesh implant. Lydia asserts she has suffered physical injury, pain, mental anguish, permanent scarring and disfigurement and that she has been faced with extensive medical bills.

Did You Suffer Hernia Mesh Complications?

If you or a loved one suffered complications such as hernia mesh infection or other hernia mesh problems, you may qualify to take legal action against the device manufacturer. By filing a hernia mesh lawsuit, you can seek compensation for your medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost wages, and other injuries you experienced due to the allegedly defective hernia mesh product..

Contact the product liability lawyers at McDonald Worley for a free, no-obligation case evaluation.


Unless we win!

Primary Contact Form
Scroll to Top